Category: zerohedge

Authored by Ret. Admiral Cem Gürdeniz via Michel Chossudovsky’s substack,

The end of the Pax Americana established after 1945 was officially acknowledged by both the leaders of finance capital and the elected leaders in Davos 26.

The World Economic Forum (WEF) 2026 in Davos, which has served as the vision and doctrine center of global capitalism for half a century, was held between January 19–23 under the theme “A Spirit of Dialogue.”

At what was arguably the most significant meeting in its history, the end of the Pax Americana established after 1945 was officially acknowledged by both the leaders of finance capital and the elected leaders of states inheriting Europe’s colonial-imperial legacy, notably France, Germany, and the United Kingdom.

Another point openly recognized was the end of globalization and neoliberalism.

Representatives of finance capital emphasized that political and economic elites had lost public trust and conceded that the neoliberal order had reached the stage of collapse due to the unsustainability of income inequality.

Politicians, for their part, admitted that law has increasingly been replaced by force and that the so‑called rules‑based international order is partly a fiction, as great powers suspend rules whenever it suits their interests. Among these statements, perhaps the most unsettling for Donald Trump came from Canada.

The Canadian Prime Minister, whom Trump had explicitly included within the Western Hemisphere in his revised national security doctrine and openly threatened, acknowledged that the narrative of a rules‑based order is fictional. He stated that finance, trade, energy, and supply chains no longer function as mechanisms of mutual benefit but as tools of pressure and weaponization, and that the Western world is not undergoing a transition but an open rupture. This was, in fact, an inevitable outcome of geopolitical realities and the interests of finance capital.

The Forced Acceptance of U.S. Withdrawal is Now Evident

The United States no longer possesses the geopolitical capacity to shape the entire globe. Its parity with China in military, technological, and industrial indicators, and in some areas its lagging position, demonstrates a structural break that makes the continuation of unipolar hegemony impossible. Trump has already been compelled to retract some of his threats. In the Greenland case, for example, he initially suggested the use of military force but later abandoned this option after nearly 800 billion dollars were wiped off U.S. stock markets on the eve of Davos.

In reality, the United States is attempting to reposition itself within a new world order. Its effort to bind the Western Hemisphere unconditionally to itself through a revival of the Monroe Doctrine is itself an admission of declining global capacity. Even within this framework, Washington cannot prevent Canada or Brazil from expanding relations with China, nor can it stop Argentina from maintaining comprehensive economic ties with Beijing. These cases, alongside BRICS and other Global South countries, demonstrate how a policy based on pressure and threats is counterproductive.

States increasingly seek balance with China, whose trade, infrastructure financing, and mutual‑benefit model creates attraction precisely because it does not rely on coercion. At Davos, China was discussed through the lens of controlled uncertainty rather than open rupture. While the United States draws a sharp line of systemic competition, European countries attempt to balance economic realities with geopolitical pressures. On one hand, they seek to maintain trade, investment, and market access with China; on the other, they pursue distancing in technology, security, and critical infrastructure. This reflects a European policy characterized by tactical flexibility rather than strategic clarity.

By contrast, the United States’ coercive approach generates rupture rather than loyalty. For Washington, multipolarity is no longer a strategic choice but the symptomatic outcome of weakening power and the forced acceptance of reality. The open acknowledgment by allies such as France, the United Kingdom, Germany, Canada, and Saudi Arabia that the U.S.‑centered order has ended is a direct result of this erosion. If this trajectory continues, the United States will eventually face the necessity of returning to a policy of peaceful coexistence with China, reminiscent of Cold War‑era coexistence with the Soviet Union. The alternative, of course, is war.

The End of the Rules-Based Order

The most evident common denominator of Davos 2026 was the recognition that the global order is undergoing a rupture rather than an evolution. For decades, the discourse of a rules‑based international system functioned as a narrative that concealed arbitrary exemptions and asymmetric practices by great powers. In Davos, this curtain was openly lifted. Selective application of law, the bending of trade rules in favor of the powerful, and the transformation of security into a bargaining instrument were no longer denied. The most striking political statement on this issue came from Canada’s Prime Minister, former financier Mark Carney. He stressed that finance, trade, energy, and supply chains have become instruments of pressure and coercion. By declaring that he no longer shared belief in the rules‑based order, Carney effectively dissolved the ideological legitimacy of the U.S.‑led liberal system. His declaration can be regarded as epoch‑making, signaling the collapse of the ideological foundation of the Western order sustained since the Cold War.

Yet this moment of truth also exposes hypocrisy: states that have supported imperial interventions from Libya to Iraq, and from Syria to Gaza, confront reality only when threats are directed at themselves, such as in the case of Greenland and Denmark.

Confrontation Against the Replacement of Law by Power

Participants at Davos 2026 broadly agreed that the world is rapidly drifting toward an order in which law recedes and power prevails. Although German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, French President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer approached this development from different angles, the resulting picture was the same. These leaders, who had remained largely silent in the face of legal violations in Gaza, Israel’s attacks on Iran, the abduction of Venezuela’s president by the United States, or the harassment of civilian merchant vessels under the pretext of a “shadow fleet,” suddenly discovered the dangers of a world governed by raw power. Those now warning that even great powers become insecure when rules collapse were themselves active participants in power politics against weaker states only a year earlier. The outcome of their speeches revealed a clear confrontation between two camps: those who view power as the sole source of legitimacy, and those who seek to restrain power through law.

Trade is Now a Weapon

Nearly every economic discussion at Davos underscored that trade is no longer a neutral vehicle of prosperity. Tariffs have become negotiating tools, sanctions geopolitical punishment mechanisms, and supply chains zones of vulnerability. The efficiencies of global integration have evolved into advantages used by great powers to suppress competitors. Consequently, the concept of commercial security has moved to the forefront, particularly in middle and advanced economies, where free trade is increasingly replaced by selective, controlled, and politicized exchange. Davos also highlighted that the structural distance between the United States and Europe is no longer a temporary tension. Trade deficits, automotive and industrial exports, regulatory conflicts, and defense spending have become focal points of divergence. Washington views Europe as a bloc that benefits economically while failing to share security burdens, whereas Europe perceives the United States as unpredictable, unilateral, and cost‑imposing. The transatlantic relationship has shifted from a shared‑values partnership to a hard bargaining arena.

Breaking the Security-Economy Connection

Although NATO was not discussed explicitly at Davos, it loomed large in the background. The U.S. share of alliance defense spending is increasingly wielded as an economic and political lever. The United States accounts for roughly two‑thirds of NATO defense expenditures and about 16 percent of its annual budget. Trump’s longstanding criticism of Europe’s strategic complacency has evolved into a broader attempt to monetize the U.S. security umbrella through trade, energy, and strategic concessions. European states, however, increasingly interpret this as an assault on sovereignty and autonomy, thereby eroding the traditional balance between security and economics within NATO. Trump’s insistence that Greenland is vital to U.S. security, rather than NATO’s collective defense, further undermined alliance cohesion and symbolized a deeper crisis of trust.

The New Geopolitical Conjuncture and the Rise of the Middle Powers

The Davos 2026 process also strengthened the self‑confidence of medium powers such as Türkiye. Intensifying great‑power competition creates both risks and opportunities for states that avoid rigid alignment or outright rupture. Countries capable of building resilience in energy, food, critical minerals, finance, and diplomacy can redefine cooperation in a fragmenting global system. Europe’s gradual rapprochement with China, mirroring Russia’s earlier turn eastward, suggests a future in which the United States consolidates the Western Hemisphere while Europe increasingly recognizes itself as Eurasia’s western peninsula. Internal fragmentation within the United States, driven by competing interests among MAGA factions, neoconservatives, lobbies, the arms industry, finance capital, and think tanks, further undermines Washington’s strategic coherence.

Türkiye Lessons

For Türkiye, Davos 2026 offers stark lessons. No global order narrative is permanent. Concepts such as a rules‑based order, strategic partnership, or alliance solidarity can be suspended whenever they conflict with great‑power interests. Türkiye must therefore ground its security, economy, and foreign policy in concrete capabilities, deterrence, and multidimensional relations rather than abstract norms. Trade, energy, and finance have become security issues, making self‑sufficiency, diversification, and resilience imperative. Agriculture, water management, and critical resources demand urgent strategic reassessment. Security architecture can no longer rely on a single‑axis alliance logic; it must rest on national capacity, a robust defense industry, and layered deterrence.

Multipolarity, while risky, also expands room for maneuver. Türkiye’s path lies in flexible, principled, interest‑based balance rather than alignment or isolation. The harshest lesson of Davos is that in a world where power overrides law, those who truly need law are those capable of defending it. International law must be treated not as abstract morality but as a framework safeguarding sovereignty and national interest. Ultimately, the sources of security, prosperity, and prestige are internal capacity and strategic intelligence, not external references. In this new era, survival belongs to states that combine strong governance, productive economies, independent defense, and multifaceted diplomacy.

This is Türkiye’s lesson from Davos.

Views expressed in this article are opinions of the author and do not necessarily reflect the views of ZeroHedge.

Across the U.S., age profiles vary widely by region.

This map, via Visual Capitalist’s Niccolo Conte, highlights those differences using the most recent nationwide estimates.

The data for this visualization comes from the U.S. Census Bureau’s American Community Survey (ACS) 2024 1-Year Estimates.

It reports the median age for each state and the District of Columbia.

The Oldest States Are Concentrated in the Northeast

The national median age stands at 39.2 as of 2024.

Rank	State	Median age overall
1	Maine	44.9
2	Vermont	43.9
3	New Hampshire	43.6
4	West Virginia	42.9
5	Florida	42.7
6	Delaware	42.1
7	Hawaii	41.5
8	Montana	41.3
9	Connecticut	41.2
10	Pennsylvania	41.2
11	Rhode Island	41.0
12	Oregon	40.8
13	South Carolina	40.7
14	Wisconsin	40.7
15	Michigan	40.4
16	Wyoming	40.2
17	Massachusetts	40.1
18	New Jersey	40.1
19	New York	40.1
20	New Mexico	39.9
21	Maryland	39.8
22	Ohio	39.8
23	Alabama	39.6
24	Nevada	39.5
25	Arizona	39.4
26	Illinois	39.4
27	Missouri	39.4
28	North Carolina	39.4
29	Virginia	39.4
30	Kentucky	39.3
31	Mississippi	39.3
32	Minnesota	39.2
33	Arkansas	39.1
34	Tennessee	39.1
35	Iowa	39.0
36	Louisiana	38.7
37	South Dakota	38.7
38	Washington	38.7
39	California	38.4
40	Indiana	38.3
41	Colorado	38.0
42	Georgia	38.0
43	Kansas	38.0
44	Idaho	37.8
45	Nebraska	37.4
46	Oklahoma	37.4
47	North Dakota	36.7
48	Alaska	36.3
49	Texas	35.9
50	District of Columbia	34.9
51	Utah	32.5
—	U.S. Median Age	39.2

New England and nearby states dominate the top of the ranking. Maine leads the country with a median age of 45, followed by Vermont and New Hampshire at 44. Several other northeastern states—including Pennsylvania, Connecticut, and Rhode Island—also exceed 41.

These older age profiles reflect long-term trends such as slower population growth, lower birth rates, and limited in-migration of younger workers.

The Sun Belt Shows a Mixed Demographic Picture

Many Sun Belt states cluster near the national average, but with some exceptions.

Florida stands out with a median age of 43, driven by its large retiree population. In contrast, Texas has a median age of 36, reflecting faster population growth and a younger workforce.

Meanwhile, states like Arizona, Nevada, and North Carolina sit close to 39.

Younger Populations Dominate the West and Plains

The youngest states are largely found in the West and Great Plains.

Utah is the clear outlier at 33, supported by higher fertility rates and larger households. The District of Columbia also skews young at 35, due in part to a concentration of working-age adults.

If you enjoyed today’s post, check out Ranked: Renters vs Homeowners by State on Voronoi, the new app from Visual Capitalist.

Another massive defeat for China’s interests in the Western Hemisphere, and another ‘win’ for Trump’s “Donroe Doctrine”…

The Supreme Court of Panama has just issued a final decision to void the contract renewal for Hong Kong’s CK Hutchison’s subsidiary to operate two Panama Canal ports, in a much anticipated landmark case driven by claims of unconstitutionality and financial irregularities. The top court has found irregularities in the 25-year extension of the concession granted in 2021.

Huge: China just lost Panama

*PANAMA TOP COURT RULES CK HUTCHISON CONTRACT UNCONSTITUTIONAL

— zerohedge (@zerohedge) January 30, 2026

The contested position that CK Hutchison occupied conferred de facto leverage over one of the world’s most critical maritime chokepoints linking the two oceans, provoking the scrutiny and ire of Washington.

This was legally challenged last year, with the question of whether CK Hutchison violated the terms of its concessions – including the renewal granted in 2021 – allegedly harming taxpayers and breaching the country’s constitution.

Crucially the lawsuit came directly at the behest of the Trump administration amid immense pressure put on Panama City, and was subsequently filed by Panama’s government following an official audit claiming CK Hutchison’s management shortchanged Panama by roughly $1.3 billion. And in the meantime:

CK Hutchison Holdings announced a deal last year to sell its majority stake in the Panamanian ports and others around the world to an international consortium that included BlackRock Inc. But the [$22.8 billion] deal appeared to stall over objections by the Chinese government.

Trump had publicly praised that later stalled transaction in March. This after the White House’s eyeing of Panama began nearly a year ago with Secretary of State Marco Rubio’s January 31, 2025 visit – his first foreign trip as new Secretary of State. This served to put control of the country’s ports squarely at top of the US agenda for Latin America policy.

President Trump has long made clear his intention to reassert American influence and control over the Panama Canal, given the strategic artery was built by the United States in the early 20th century and formally transferred to Panama in 1999. He has made statements expressing wanting it back, essentially.

We had previewed just last week:

As for another country which could increasingly be in Trump crosshairs for either a pressure campaign (or worse) under the ‘Donroe Doctrine’ is Panama, already subject of the mid-December 1989 US military invasion which deposed on-again-off-again Washington ally (and long-running CIA asset) and military dictator Manuel Noriega. The historic Operation Just Cause mission saw over 27,000 US troops invade, ostensibly to go after Noriega for drug trafficking and to protect the Panama Canal.

A mission to ‘protect’ the Panama Canal could once again be used as rationale for American intervention in 2026.

And now: “It’s not just a huge win for Panama’s taxpayers, it’s a big win for America and certainly for President Trump,” a senior Trump administration official told Axios Thursday in anticipation of the court ruling going Washington’s way.

* * *

Below is a rush machine translation from the official Supreme Court statement:

Republic of Panama
Judicial Branch

STATEMENT

The Full Bench of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Republic of Panama hereby informs the general public that during its ordinary session held today, January 29, 2026, after extensive deliberation and discussion of Filing No. 119313-2025 and Filing No. 17547-2025 — both consisting of constitutional challenges against Law No. 5 of January 16, 1997, its addenda, and the extension agreement — and in fulfillment of its duty as guardian of the Political Constitution, it decided to declare them UNCONSTITUTIONAL.

The challenged laws and acts are related to the Concession Contract between the State and Panama Ports Company, S.A., for the development, construction, operation, administration, and management of port terminals for containers, Ro-Ro cargo, passengers, bulk cargo, and general cargo at the ports of Balboa and Cristóbal.

Authored by Duncan Burch via The Epoch Times (emphasis ours),

Few have had as profound an effect on modern scientific understanding as Sir Isaac Newton.

Many people are familiar with the story of how a falling apple first inspired Newton to investigate the force that would come to be known as gravity, and as he later concluded in his seminal scientific treatise, “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” it is this same force that pulls a fruit to ground that keeps the planets in orbit.

While Newton undoubtedly possessed a keen sense of observation and an insatiable curiosity that enabled him to make some of the most influential mathematical and scientific discoveries in recorded history, his prolific notes and writings—especially the vast amount of manuscripts that went unpublished until hundreds of years after his death—reveal a more profound motivation.

Newton wrote more, arguably significantly more, on theology than on scientific phenomena. According to those most familiar with the totality of his writings, he viewed the two not as distinctive pursuits, but as one unified quest to map out the divine order of the universe.

Although Newton is justifiably renowned for his numerous astounding scientific contributions, what is less known about him is that he was also a devout Christian, a dedicated scriptural scholar, and one of the most preeminent theologians of his time. While his public scientific works blossomed in full view of the world, it was his private religious studies that served as the unseen roots providing sustenance to those blooms.

A Devout Christian

Because of his demonstrated mathematical prowess, in 1669, at the age of 26, Newton was appointed as the Lucasian Chair of Mathematics at the University of Cambridge. At the time, all Cambridge professors were required to take the holy orders of the Church of England, but Newton at first delayed and ultimately refused to take the oath.

However, this refusal did not stem from his lack of faith or a rejection of the Bible, but in fact just the opposite—he believed that the church had embraced certain misinterpretations of the Bible that he could not in good conscience profess to believe. Newton was fluent in both Latin and Greek, and it was his extensive studies of original scriptures that led him to reject certain tenets of the church, specifically those concerning the Trinity. 

Though he did not speak or write publicly about his disagreement with church doctrine, fearing that controversial theological arguments could inhibit or undermine his scientific research, his refusal to take the holy orders posed a serious threat to his early career.

Fortunately, some of his fellow teachers petitioned the king on his behalf, and he was ultimately granted a special dispensation that exempted him from the oath requirement and allowed him to remain in his position at Cambridge. It was around this time that Newton began to record his theological research in notebooks. And this was no passing fancy for the great scientist, as throughout the remainder of his life, he continued to write and revise his extensive theological notes and Biblical interpretations.

Many of his contemporaries were aware of his private work and considered him an authority on Biblical theology. Newton corresponded extensively on matters of Biblical interpretation with luminary thinkers and scholars, including the philosopher John Locke and the influential theologian John Mill. At one point, even the Archbishop of Canterbury, the senior bishop of the Church of England, stated that Newton knew more about the Bible than any members of the clergy.

A Divine Order

Despite the fact that Newton never published the vast majority of his theological writings, what he did publish during his life left little doubt as to his belief in the intelligent design of the universe by a divine creator. Although Newton almost completely avoided the topic of theology in his most famous scientific work, the “Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” when he published the second edition of the work in 1713, he included an addendum known as the “General Scholium,” around half of which is devoted to his theological conception of the universe.

“The Supreme God is a Being eternal, infinite, absolutely perfect,” he wrote. “And from his true dominion it follows that the true God is a living, intelligent, and powerful Being. … He is not eternity and infinity, but eternal and infinite; he is not duration or space, but he endures and is present … by existing always and every where, he constitutes duration and space.”

So even during his lifetime, Newton’s belief in a divine order and a supreme creator was well known. What was not well known, though, was the vast extent of his scriptural scholarship and writing. His unpublished papers consisted of more than 6 million words, approximately one-third of which were devoted to scriptural study and theology.

After Newton’s death in 1727, thousands of pages of notes and unpublished writings were acquired by his closest living relatives, but out of concern that the papers would offend the church and damage his scientific reputation, the relatives kept them private. As a result, the majority of his papers remained hidden from public view for nearly 150 years.

In 1872, most of Newton’s scientific and mathematical papers were donated to the University of Cambridge, where they were catalogued and made available to scholars. But the remainder of the papers, including those concerned with theology and biblical scholarship, remained private until they were put up for auction by Sotheby’s in 1936.

The auction was not widely publicized and was generally overshadowed by other auctions occurring around the same time, and as a result, the papers were scattered to various collectors and dealers around the world. However, shortly after the auction, two men set out to acquire different portions of Newton’s lost papers.

Saving the Lost Papers

One of these men was the prominent economist and mathematician John Maynard Keynes, who focused primarily on acquiring Newton’s notes on the subject of alchemy, of which there were many. The term alchemy connotes different things to different people, and while it is sometimes associated with occult magic, it is also considered to be influential in the development of modern chemistry. Even among Keynes and others who have studies Newton’s lost writings on alchemy, there seems to be no clear consensus on what he was studying or why.

The other man who aggressively set out to acquire Newton’s lost papers was the Jewish scholar and linguist Abraham Yahuda, who focused primarily on the acquisition of Newton’s theological writings.

Yahuda was a rabbinical philologist who taught and lectured at numerous prominent universities in Europe and around the world throughout the early decades of the 1900s, and he was also a collector of rare manuscripts. Although he was an accomplished linguist who studied the early writings of many cultures, his primary field of study was the philology of the Torah, and he recognized Newton as someone who was also deeply interested in accurately interpreting the symbolic language of the Old Testament.

By the late 1930s, Yahuda had acquired thousands of pages of Newton’s manuscripts, with which he fled to London at the outbreak of World War II.

In early 1940, his acquaintance and fellow scholar Albert Einstein helped arrange for Yahuda and his wife to travel to New York, and later that summer the two men met at Einstein’s summer retreat in the Adirondacks. Apparently, they discussed Newton’s lost papers that Yahuda acquired because Einstein wrote to him later that year concerning the topic.

“Newton’s writings on biblical subjects seem to me especially interesting,” Einstein wrote, “because they provide deep insight into the characteristic intellectual features and working methods of this important man. The divine origin of the Bible is for Newton absolutely certain, a conviction that stands in curious contrast to the critical skepticism that characterizes his attitude toward the churches.”

In his letter, Einstein also lamented the fact that most of the preparatory works of Newton’s physics writings had been lost or destroyed, but he was convinced that the theological works could provide valuable insight into Newton’s thinking and methods. At least, he concluded, “we do have this domain of his works on the Bible drafts and their repeated modification; these mostly unpublished writings therefore allow a highly interesting insight into the mental workshop of this unique thinker.”

Although Yahuda never published or sold his collection of Newton’s papers, he did write about them, and he was one of the first scholars to understand and note the importance of Newton’s theology on his broader work. After his death in 1952, his wife donated the papers to the Jewish National and University Library at Hebrew University in Jerusalem, where for the first time they were made available to the public.

In the ensuing decades, many scholars and writers began to study and publish papers on Newton’s theological writings, ultimately providing an expanded perspective into the thinking of one of the world’s most influential scientists. At the turn of the century and in the years since, several organizations, including The Newton Project, have set out to catalogue and publish the lost theological writings of Isaac Newton, many of which are now available to the general public and easily accessible online.

Newton’s Search for God’s Divine Plan

“Mathematical Principles of Natural Philosophy,” published in Latin in 1687, in which Newton formulated the laws of motion and universal gravitation, is perhaps the most influential scientific treatise ever composed, not only for its insights into classical mechanics and the functioning of the physical world but also for its advancements of scientific methods of inquiry. 

Newton made significant contributions to many fields of scientific study, including mathematics, optics, and physics. His studies of prisms and the light spectrum led him to design and build the first reflecting telescope, and he also made the first attempts to calculate the speed of sound. As a mathematician, he was the first person to employ the principles of modern calculus, and he was a pioneer in numerous areas of mathematical theories and calculations.

While his influence on the history of science is well known and undeniable, his prominence as a theologian has only come to full light more recently with the publication of his lost papers.

There is no doubt that Newton was a man of devout faith, and that faith inspired and informed his scientific inquiry. As he wrote in the General Scholium, “This most beautiful system of the sun, planets, and comets, could only proceed from the counsel and dominion of an intelligent and powerful being.”

As scholars continue to study his lost papers, perhaps more insights into Newton’s conception of the universe will be revealed.

Factoring in projected rates for asset-class returns and inflation, Morningstar analysts say the highest “safe” starting withdrawal rate for people retiring in 2026 is 3.9% of portfolio assets. By “safe,” Morningstar means this is the highest rate that has a 90% chance of having some money at the end of a 30-year retirement. Depending on the scheme you use for subsequent withdrawals, you may be able to succeed with a higher initial withdrawal rate. 

Morningstar calculates the safe initial-withdrawal rate each year. This year’s rate is up 20 basis points from last year’s 3.7%. It was just 3.3% in 2021. It bears emphasizing that Morningstar’s 3.9% rate isn’t for anyone at any point in their retirement: It’s an initial withdrawal rate for someone just starting to tap a portfolio in 2026, and then planning to increase subsequent withdrawals by the previous year’s inflation rate. For example, someone with a million-dollar portfolio would take $39,000 out in the first year. Let’s say price-inflation in 2026 is 5%. Next year’s withdrawal would be $39,000 x 1.05, or $40,950. 

Morningstar’s 3.9% rate also assumes an equity allocation between 30% and 50%. “Because of the higher volatility associated with higher equity weightings, boosting stocks detracts from the starting safe withdrawal percentage rather than adds to it,” Morningstar says. That equity-weighting dynamic springs from what makes retirement-withdrawal planning so dicey: “sequence of return” risk. It’s the chance that dismal returns in the critical first years of retirement put a major dent in your portfolio, increasing your risk of running out of money.

On a 30-year retirement, Morningstar found equity allocations of 30% to 50% support a 3.9% initial withdrawal. However, an 80% equity weighting dropped it to 3.6%, while a 10% stock exposure cut it to 3.7%. Of course, the duration of your retirement — how long you expect to live — is another critical factor. Longer retirements lower the initial safe withdrawal rate. At a 50% equity allocation, the safe rate for a 35-year drawdown is 3.5%, and it’s just 3.2% for a 40-year retirement. 

Morningstar acknowledged that increasing withdrawals every year by the inflation rate is just one of many schemes for planning for retirement income. Calling that method the “base case,” the firm also projected a safe initial rate using eight other approaches, each of which comes with its own pros and cons. Two methods were tied at the top, supporting a 5.7% initial “safe” withdrawal rate for a 30-year retirement: 

• Endowment Method: Borrowing from a spending methodology used by college endowments, this one applies a percentage withdrawal rate to the portfolio’s average value over time. Morningstar used a 10-year average. At first though, it used the value as of the end of the last year before retirement. With each year into retirement, it added another year to the average, until eventually hitting 10 years and using a 10-year look-back from that point on.
• Constant Percentage Method: If you’re wary of trying to teach complex methods to a spouse who may outlive you, this method shines in its simplicity, as it calculates each year’s withdrawal by applying a never-changing rate to the value of the portfolio at year-end. Morningstar put in a floor: Even if the calculation suggests otherwise, the retiree doesn’t withdraw less than 90% of the very first withdrawal. 

Retirement-income planning relies heavily on assumptions on a host of variables. Morningstar’s calculations from year to year are driven in large part by the firm’s expectations for 30-year returns on various asset classes, as well as a projected inflation rate over that horizon. Here are the 30-year return assumptions baked into Morningstar’s 3.9% base case: 

• US Large Growth: 8.58%
• US Large Value: 8.74%
• US Small Growth: 10.23%
• US Small Value: 12.69%
• Foreign Stocks: 9.36%
• US Investment-Grade Bond: 4.64%
• Foreign Bond: 4.68%
• Cash / US T-Bill: 2.92%
• Inflation: 2.46%

We’d also note that your spending patterns aren’t likely to be uniform over your retirement. Many financial planners break retirement into three conceptual phases, calling the first one “Go-Go,” as active, relatively healthy, younger retirees live it up, indulge in frequent travel and restaurant dining, and equip themselves with new leisure goods. Next comes “Slow-Go,” where retirees are still up and about, but maybe less adventurous and more satisfied with their possessions. Then, typically in the 80s or 90s, they reach “No-Go,” where they’re much more prone to staying close to home — if not confined there — and spending much less on themselves. (Long-term care expenses can be a wild card here.) 

You can dive deeper into Morningstar’s methods here. At the bottom of the top-line report, you can request a far more detailed, 54-page treatment of the topic, with elaborations on nine different retirement income methodologies. 

Authored by Anna Poff via The College Fix,

A Harvard-backed summer scholarship program accused of racial discrimination quietly revised its eligibility language after a legal complaint, but critics told The College Fix the change came too late.

The Union Scholars summer scholarship program is headed by the American Federation of State, County, and Municipal Employees, with support from Harvard University, including the use of its facilities and a partnership with the school’s Center for Labor and a Just Economy and the Wurf Fund, according to a federal complaint from the Equal Protection Project.

“After we filed the complaint and it was reported in The NY Post, AFSCME changed its website to remove the ‘students of color’ language – but that’s too late and too little,” EPP President William Jacobson told The College Fix via email.

“The program itself is intended for students of color, the website just said the quiet part out loud. This program still violates the law even though they are trying to hide the evidence,” he said. 

Jacobson also said that “The removal of incriminating language after the complaint was filed reflects a consciousness of guilt – there would be no reason to change the website if the program didn’t discriminate.”

He added that “the Harvard programs must be open without regard to race as a matter of law and common decency.”

The program is “a summer scholarship and internship opportunity” for students who want to promote “social and economic justice,” according to its website.

“Like our union, the program supports our vision of growing a diverse union movement founded on principles of inclusivity,” the website states.

It takes place over seven weeks in the summer, including a four-day orientation followed by six weeks of field placement at a “union organizing campaign in one of several locations across the United States.”

A disclaimer at the bottom of the website says AFSCME is an equal opportunity employer and prohibits discrimination based on race, sex, national origin, disability, or other protected characteristics.

The College Fix attempted to reach the AFSCME and Harvard via email, but has not received a reply.

Do No Harm Senior Fellow Mark Perry told The Fix that he “wasn’t surprised to hear about another case of illegal discrimination involving Harvard University.”

Perry said he “has filed nearly 1,000 federal civil rights complaints for more than 2,500 violations of Title VI (race) and Title IX (sex) at more than 850 colleges and universities.”

Of those, roughly a dozen were “federal civil rights complaints against Harvard.” 

Some complaints targeted Harvard alone, while others involved the school’s participation in joint ventures with outside organizations, similar to its current relationship with AFSCME.

Perry said that “those complaints were successfully resolved when Harvard agreed to discontinue its partnerships with external organizations that used Harvard’s brand name, facilities, faculty, and academic reputation to promote programs that discriminated based on race.”

He said he anticipates a similar outcome in the EPP’s complaint against Harvard, arguing that the university’s partnership with AFSCME and the program’s discriminatory practices cannot be legally justified.

“Given the past successful challenges of Harvard’s violations of federal civil rights laws, it’s disappointing that Harvard continues to engage in illegal race-based discrimination, especially after the Supreme Court ruled that Harvard’s race-conscious admissions policies were unconstitutional and illegal,” Perry told The Fix.

“Unfortunately, Harvard apparently still hasn’t learned that compliance with federal civil rights laws isn’t optional or voluntary: it’s legally mandated,” he said.

Perry commended the EPP “for exposing and challenging Harvard’s latest attempt to circumvent federal civil rights laws.”

He said he is expecting the group to “prevail with a legal victory at the Civil Rights Division of the U.S. Department of Justice.”

A growing wave of lawsuits is challenging the safety warnings accompanying blockbuster weight-loss drugs that have rapidly reshaped American medicine and culture, raising questions about whether patients were adequately informed of the risks tied to medications now used by tens of millions of people.

The plaintiffs’ stories vary widely, but share a common claim: that drugs known as GLP-1 receptor agonists – including Ozempic, Wegovy and Mounjaro – caused severe, life-altering injuries that were not sufficiently disclosed at the time they were prescribed.

A Maryland truck driver says he suffered what doctors described as an “eye stroke,” losing vision first in one eye and then the other. A Louisiana woman developed a serious neurological condition after weeks of vomiting and malnutrition. An Oklahoma real-estate agent alleges her colon ruptured without warning while she was driving her granddaughter home from a softball game.

“My colon blew up. Literally blew up,” said JoHelen McClain, the Oklahoma plaintiff. “I was trying to slim down and feel healthy.”

All three are among more than 4,400 plaintiffs who have filed lawsuits since 2023 against the drugs’ manufacturers, Novo Nordisk and Eli Lilly, according to court filings. The cases are now consolidated into federal and state litigation expected to take years to resolve.

The suits come amid explosive growth in the use of GLP-1 drugs. An estimated 12% of American adults – more than 31 million people – are currently using a GLP-1 medication, according to the nonpartisan health policy group KFF. Prescriptions rose from roughly one million in 2018 to about nine million in 2022, and usage doubled again between 2024 and 2025, Gallup data show.

Originally developed to treat diabetes, the drugs mimic a hormone that slows digestion, stimulates insulin release and increases feelings of fullness. Their success has helped reduce U.S. obesity rates for the first time in more than a decade and spurred research into additional benefits, including reduced risks of kidney disease, addiction and dementia.

Yet plaintiffs allege that the same mechanism slowing digestion can, in some patients, lead to serious gastrointestinal and neurological injuries.

In court on Jan. 13, Novo Nordisk attorney Katie Insogna said (via USA Today):

• 75% of the federal lawsuits include an allegation of gastroparesis, also known as “stomach paralysis,” a chronic condition where the stomach slows or stops emptying food into the small intestine;

• 18% of the cases allege the drugs caused ileus, a condition in which bowel muscles fail to push food and waste out of the body;

• 18% of the plaintiffs allege intestinal obstructions;

• 8% say they suffered from gallbladder injuries, with some of these patients requiring surgical removal of gangrenous tissue;

• 8% of the plaintiffs allege other serious gastrointestinal complications, such as extreme vomiting, chronic acid reflux or abdominal pain that required multiple hospitalizations in some cases. Others say their digestion issues have continued even after they stopped taking the drugs.

USA TODAY’s review of the lawsuits also found at least 110 plaintiffs alleging sudden blindness or severe vision changes, and at least one alleging Wernicke’s encephalopathy, a neurological condition linked to vitamin B1 deficiency.

The drugmakers deny the allegations. In a joint filing last year, the companies said “the safety profile of GLP-1 RAs has been well-established in hundreds of clinical trials, large-scale observational studies, and nearly two decades of real-world use.”

“Novo Nordisk remains confident in the benefit-risk profile of our GLP-1 medicines, when used consistent with their indications and product labeling,” said company spokesperson Flavia Brakling, adding that labels are updated “in cooperation with the FDA and consistent with federal regulations.”

An Eli Lilly spokesperson said, “Patient safety is Lilly’s top priority,” noting that the labels for Mounjaro, Zepbound and Trulicity have “always warned of potential ‘gastrointestinal adverse reactions, sometimes severe.’”

Legal experts say the cases may hinge on whether plaintiffs can prove causation and whether warnings were legally sufficient at the time.

“Proving the drugs caused certain outcomes will be an issue,” said Ana Santos Rutschman, a health-law professor at Villanova University, along with determining “the extent and timing of warnings.”

For Todd Engel, the Maryland truck driver, the outcome has already been devastating. After four months on Ozempic to manage diabetes, he woke in December 2023 with vision loss in one eye. Diagnosed with non-arteritic anterior ischemic optic neuropathy, or NAION, he continued taking the drug after doctors failed to identify a cause. In October 2024, he lost vision in his remaining eye.

“You’re not going to believe this,” his wife, Shelley, recalled him saying. “I can’t see at all.“

Now legally blind, Engel has lost his job and commercial driver’s license. “This whole thing has been catastrophic to me and my wife,” he said.

A 2024 JAMA Ophthalmology study of nearly 17,000 patients found an increased risk of NAION among those prescribed semaglutide compared with other treatments, though it did not establish causation. European regulators later described the condition as “very rare,” prompting label updates abroad. U.S. labels warn of vision changes but do not mention NAION by name.

“What happened to me should have never happened,” Engel said.

McClain’s case unfolded differently. After losing 40 pounds on Wegovy, she suffered a sudden colon rupture in March 2024, followed by emergency surgery, sepsis and months of recovery. She now lives with a permanent stoma.

“I read everything I could find on it before I went on it,” she said. “They did not warn about any of the stuff that happened to me at that time.”

In Louisiana, Mark Smith says his wife Robin developed permanent brain damage after months of vomiting while taking Mounjaro. Doctors later diagnosed her with Wernicke’s encephalopathy.

“I still have my wife, physically, not mentally anymore,” he said.

Eli Lilly has said Mounjaro’s label has always warned of severe gastrointestinal reactions. Plaintiffs argue those warnings failed to convey how extreme or irreversible some outcomes could be.

“These drugs are not new,” said Ziyad Al-Aly, director of research at the St. Louis Veterans Affairs Health Care System. “What’s new about them is that the companies then realized, ‘Oh my God, they actually work on weight loss.’”

Al-Aly said he sympathizes with the plaintiffs but believes the drugs’ benefits outweigh the risks for most patients. “There is nothing that’s really all benefit and no risk,” he said.

The first bellwether trials in the consolidated litigation are not expected until 2027. Legal experts say such cases often take four to five years.

Authored by Jeremy Portnoy via RealClearInvestigations,

Topline: The Grinch did not successfully steal Christmas this season, but he did use up $30,493 in taxpayer money.

A viral Grinch-themed house in Dallas drew crowds so large that the city needed extra police personnel hours, vehicles and barricades to control the nightly crowd of visitors, WFAA-TV reported.

Key facts: The 9,000-square-foot mansion in the Preston Hollow neighborhood in North Dallas became famous on TikTok in 2024, thanks in part to a Santa statue with President Donald Trump’s face. The house received coverage from the Today Show and an Instagram post from rapper Snoop Dogg, and the ensuing crowds cost the city of Dallas $25,375 in 2024 – rising to over $30,000 in 2025, according to WFAA.

Neighbors were unhappy, and the home received a citation for violating city codes on noise and light glare. The home was also featured in a city council presentation that warned of safety risks from large events, including residents trapped in their homes and limited access for first responders, according to WFAA.

Homeowner Ryan De Vitis called his neighbors “the real-life Grinch” over the controversy, which may explain his choice of theme for 2025.

But this year, his neighbors were prepared. The Preston Hollow Citizens for a Safer Community bought a special events permit and used their own money to hire off-duty police officers to limit vehicle and foot traffic in the area.

That offset “significant” expenses for taxpayers, the city told WFAA, but the Dallas police still had to devote additional resources towards securing the street.

Critical quote: “While I appreciate homeowners lighting their homes to bring joy to others during the holidays, compromising public safety resources to this extent doesn’t reflect the spirit of the season,” City Councilwoman Gay Donnell Willis told KERA News last year.

Summary: The Grinch’s heart grows three sizes once he discovers the true meaning of Christmas, but the only thing growing in Dallas is the size of its projected budget deficits.

The #WasteOfTheDay is brought to you by the forensic auditors at OpenTheBooks.com

Venezuela had already long been an embargoed country, akin to Cuba in many aspects. For example, direct commercial passenger and cargo flights between the US and Venezuela have been impossible, going back to a May 2019 suspension ordered during the first Trump administration.

But after the US military ouster of Maduro, President Trump said Thursday that he ordered the reopening of Venezuela’s commercial airspace. This move, and the fact that Washington will now be overseeing the country’s monthly budget, demonstrates how decisively the US now claims to be running affairs in the oil-rich South American state.

Trump told a televised cabinet meeting he has already “informed” interim president Delcy Rodríguez that US oil companies would soon be arriving to scout potential projects.

It was once documented that after the US-NATO overthrow of Libya’s Muammar Gaddafi, the oil executives made it to Tripoli before the diplomats, as their private jets were faster. This looks to be the case with Venezuela too, given the US Embassy has not even yet reopened. 

“American citizens will very shortly be able to go to Venezuela, and they will be safe there. It’s under very strong control,” Trump said at the White House.

Shortly after Trump’s remarks, American Airlines said it would move to resume flights to Venezuela, pending formal approval from the administration and assurances of “secure conditions”. Trump confirmed that he had directed the Transportation Department to lift the previous restrictions.

Trump also had some positive words in support of Maduro’s former Vice President, current interim leader Rodríguez:

The president said he had instructed the US transportation secretary, Sean Duffy, and Pentagon officials to implement the change before the day’s end. He characterized the security situation in Venezuela as being “under very strong control” after Rodríguez replaced Maduro.

She had days ago declared that she would stop taking orders from Washington, but this was clearly more for domestic consumption, where she has to pretend she’s asserting national sovereignty in decision-making.

But Venezuela is clearly a country that is anything but sovereign at this moment. More details on Washington’s role have been freshly revealed in the NY Times:

Venezuela’s interim government has agreed to submit a monthly “budget” to the Trump administration, which will release money from an account funded by the country’s oil sales and initially managed by Qatar, Secretary of State Marco Rubio said on Wednesday.

But the plan drew sharp questions from skeptical Democrats, and Mr. Rubio conceded that it was “novel” and hastily designed. The role of Qatar — a Middle Eastern country thousands of miles from Venezuela whose ruler has won President Trump’s favor — drew particular criticism from Democrats, who questioned its legality and transparency.

Mr. Rubio detailed the plan during an appearance before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee. It was Mr. Rubio’s first public testimony to Congress since American forces captured Venezuela’s leader, Nicolás Maduro, on Jan. 3, and an opportunity to clarify U.S. policy toward the country.

WOW.

Sen. Shaheen reveals $500M from Venezuelan oil sales.

$300M went to the Maduro government.

The other $200M?

Marco Rubio admits it’s just “sitting in an account.”

In Qatar.

So who controls it? Who benefits? And why is Congress being kept in the dark? pic.twitter.com/kTpMuLShtk

— Brian Allen (@allenanalysis) January 28, 2026

Qatar’s playing middleman is indeed interesting and ironic, given how suspicious conservatives have been of the tiny oil and gas rich Gulf country. Lately enemies of Tucker Carlson have blasted him for being influenced by Qatari funds, and yet here the Trump administration is quite openly and unapologetically embracing it.

Authored by Benjamin Weingarten via RealClearInvestigations,

Instead of the word of the Lord, worshippers at the Jan. 18 Sunday prayer service at Cities Church in St. Paul were met with chants such as “ICE out” and “Justice for Renee Good.” But that’s not all. Families in the pews were harangued as “pretend Christians” and “comfortable white people,” and even condemned as “Nazis,” who would “burn in hell” by at least one of the dozens of opponents of the Trump administration’s Twin Cities Immigration and Customs Enforcement surge who disrupted church services. 

The protestors participating in “Operation Pullup” said they targeted the church and hurled such invective at its congregants because one of the church’s eight pastors is a federal immigration officer.

Two days later, federal prosecutors lodged a criminal complaint accusing the demonstration’s leader, Nekima Levy Armstrong, and other protestors including Chauntyll Louisa Allen and William Kelly, of conspiring to violate the rights of the congregants to freely worship, under charges historically brought almost exclusively against anti-abortion protestors tied to the Freedom of Access to Clinics Entrances or FACE Act.

Conservatives have long complained that the federal government weaponized the law to target pro-life Christians praying outside abortion clinics – with the Biden-led Justice Department for the first time combining FACE Act charges with such “conspiracy against rights” charges under the Ku Klux Klan Act to dramatically increase jail sentences. Now, the Trump administration is seeking to employ these laws to defend faithful Christians – and other worshippers – and bring their opponents to justice, under a long-dormant provision of the FACE Act aimed at protecting religious liberty.

It is not clear how successful this effort will be. A magistrate judge struck the FACE Act charge against the three protestors not because the law did not apply in the case but because, he ruled, prosecutors lacked probable cause at that juncture. The judge did leave in place a conspiracy charge against the three connected to the First Amendment’s protection of religious rights.

Whether authorities ultimately substantiate the FACE Act charge before a judge with further evidence, or secure it before a grand jury, Attorney General Pam Bondi was adamant, in tweeting on the day of the arrests, “Listen loud and clear: WE DO NOT TOLERATE ATTACKS ON PLACES OF WORSHIP.”

Echoing previous complaints from pro-life advocates, progressives are now complaining that the Trump administration is weaponizing the law against its political opponents. The NAACP, whose Minneapolis chapter Armstrong formerly headed, issued a press release calling the administration’s actions unconstitutional, and asserting that “The only reason the FBI and DHS arrested them is that they didn’t like what they had to say.”

FACE in Trump’s Crosshairs

While progressives have seen the FACE Act as essential to protecting abortion rights since it was passed in 1993, many conservatives have seen it as a cudgel to punish the exercise of religious freedom. 

In one of the first acts of his second term, President Trump pardoned nearly two-dozen pro-life protestors prosecuted by the Biden administration, many convicted on dual FACE Act and conspiracy against rights charges.

One day later, on Jan. 24, 2025, the Justice Department’s chief of staff issued a memorandum altering the department’s FACE Act charging policy. It directed that “future abortion-related FACE Act prosecutions and civil actions will be permitted only in extraordinary circumstances, or in cases presenting significant aggravating factors, such as death, serious bodily harm, or serious property damage.”

Going forward, the assistant attorney general for the Civil Rights Division would have to approve all abortion-related FACE Act actions, the memo stated. The department would also dismiss several pending cases with prejudice. 

The prosecution of the Minnesota church protestors represents part of a new legal front opened by the Justice Department to protect worshippers and houses of worship using long-ignored provisions of the 32-year-old law.

FACE Act’s Forgotten Provisions

Citing evidence of growing “anti-abortion violence and blockades,” Sen. Edward M. Kennedy introduced the FACE Act in 1993, claiming it would protect abortion providers facing an “unacceptable reign of terror.” The law initially prohibited individuals from engaging in violence, threats of violence, obstruction, intimidation, or interference solely against those seeking abortions or facilitating them and associated medical facilities.

Kennedy urged that Congress enact the law “before another doctor dies, or another clinic is blockaded or burned to the ground.” Peaceful protestors, the longtime “liberal lion” of the Senate assured, would “have nothing to fear from this legislation.”

One of Kennedy’s Republican colleagues was not so sure. Utah Sen. Orrin Hatch offered an amendment extending the bill’s protections to those exercising or seeking to exercise their right to pray at a house of worship, as well as the houses of worship themselves. In introducing the amendment, Hatch asserted that it “would ensure that the First Amendment right of religious liberty receives the same protection from interference that…[the bill] would give abortion.”

“Simply put, anyone who votes against this amendment or who attempts to dilute it values religious freedom far less than abortion,” Hatch added.

Ted Kennedy accepted the amendment without objection. Congress would concur, adopting the provision and, among other things, expanding the bill’s protections to encompass not only abortion centers, but all reproductive health service facilities. 

In 1994, the FACE Act became law. The signing ceremony foreshadowed how the Justice Department would apply the law, with then-Attorney General Janet Reno emphasizing that the bill achieved the Justice Department’s goal of protecting women’s “constitutional right to choose to have an abortion.” 

In the ensuing decades, nearly every FACE Act prosecution brought under Democrat and Republican administrations alike targeted protestors at abortion facilities.

According to data obtained by Texas Republican Rep. Chip Roy, between 1994 and 2024, the Justice Department brought 211 FACE Act cases, 205 of which came against pro-life activists.

Roy obtained the statistics in probing the Biden administration, which he and other conservatives and Christian organizations allege selectively deployed the law to target pro-life protestors, while ignoring attacks on pro-life activists, reproductive facilities, and churches – particularly in the wake of the Dobbs Supreme Court decision overturning Roe v. Wade. 

The Biden Justice Department brought 24 FACE Act cases against 55 defendants. Only two of the two-dozen cases, covering five individuals, concerned attacks on pregnancy resource centers, despite testimony from former FBI Director Christopher Wray that in the wake of the leak of the Dobbs decision, “more of our abortion-related violent extremism investigations have focused on violence against pro-life facilities as opposed to the other way around.” 

The Biden administration’s critics noted that when it did apply the law, it tried to give it more bite. For the first time, its Justice Department tacked on felony “conspiracy against rights” charges in FACE Act cases, increasing prison sentences from no more than six months for a first-time nonviolent FACE Act offender to upwards of 10 years. In congressional hearings, Republican witnesses claimed the law was being weaponized to punish peaceful pro-life protestors.

Democrats challenged this view. In a June 2025 House Judiciary Committee hearing touching on the FACE Act, Rep. Jamie Raskin of Maryland, the ranking Democrat on the committee, cited evidence from the National Abortion Federation that the Dobbs decision had given rise to “an immediate spike in major incidents targeting abortion providers, including arson, burglaries, and death threats.” Raskin dismissed the claims of weaponization, asserting that “If more people have been convicted of attacking pro-choice abortion clinics than have been convicted of attacking pro-life pregnancy centers…it is because there have been vastly more people attacking abortion clinics than attacking pregnancy centers.”

Even as the debate around FACE focused on abortion, some said it should be applied more widely. In her 2023 congressional testimony, Arielle Del Turco, Director of the Center for Religious Liberty at the Family Research Council, reported that between January 2018 and April 2023 alone there were 565 attacks against churches across the U.S. Vandalism made up the lion’s share of recorded incidents, but there were also dozens of arson attacks or attempts, as well as gun-related incidents, bomb threats, and interruptions of religious services – many “directly tied to anti-religious animus related to the abortion issue” following the Dobbs leak and decision, Del Turco said.

“As long as the FACE Act remains law, it should be used as a tool to go after perpetrators of attacks such as th[e]se,” she said.

The Biden Justice Department did not heed this advice. It failed to prosecute a single case concerning an attack on a house of worship pursuant to the FACE Act.

Changing Face of FACE

The Trump administration has worked to change the often one-sided and exclusively pregnancy-related focus of federal law enforcement under the FACE Act – although its initial case concerned a synagogue, not a Christian church. 

Last September, amid a rise in antisemitic attacks in the U.S. following Hamas’ Oct. 7, 2023, massacre, the Justice Department brought what it billed as its first-ever FACE Act case aimed at defending a house of worship.

The complaint concerned various incidents occurring during what the department characterized as a “violent protest” at a suburban New Jersey synagogue. 

The department alleged that defendants, including several individuals, the Party for Socialism and Liberation-New Jersey, and American Muslims for Palestine-New Jersey, “engaged in a coordinated effort to intimidate and disrupt Jewish worshipers at a religious event held at the synagogue,” including “physical assaults” on, among others, the event’s organizer, Dr. Moshe Glick, “anti-Semitic and threatening chants, and defiance of police orders.”

Dr. Glick held the event, which included an Israel real estate fair at the synagogue, after shifting it from his home following alleged threats from one of the defendants, and on pro-Palestinian social media accounts publicizing his home address and indicating protestors would target it. 

Approximately 50 anti-Israel protestors, lacking a permit to protest, mobbed the gathering in violation of police orders, allegedly obstructing Jewish worshippers from accessing it and attempting to intimidate and disrupt the service. Demonstrators reportedly chanted slogans such as “Zionists are Nazis,” “Intifada, Intifada,” and “From the River to the Sea, Palestine will be free” in protest of an event they claimed promoted the sale of “stolen land.”

According to the complaint, one defendant participating in such activities, Altaf Sharif, a Muslim who marched on the synagogue’s property, allegedly blared a vuvuzela in Glick’s ear. The doctor swatted the vuvuzela away, and Sharif charged at him. In defending Glick, a fellow worshipper, David Silberberg, pepper-sprayed Sharif in the eyes. Another protester responded by yelling, “The Jew is here!” pointing at Silberberg. Sharif put Silberberg in a headlock, threw him to the ground, and allegedly dragged him down a hill outside the synagogue, and “drilled…[his] head into the ground.” With local police officers failing to quickly respond, the doctor intervened, hitting Sharif on the head with his flashlight. This caused Sharif to let go of Silberberg, enabling him to escape.

The Justice Department’s civil suit seeks to prohibit the defendants from threatening the synagogue or any other house of worship in New Jersey, as well as Dr. Glick’s residence. 

The suit came months after Garden State local prosecutors alleged that Glick and Silberberg were the aggressors, charging the two with bias intimidation, aggravated assault, possession of a weapon for an unlawful purpose, and unlawful possession of a weapon. The investigation and prosecution would reportedly suffer from myriad deficiencies, including withholding of exculpatory evidence, coaching a witness, and soliciting false testimony. Prosecutors dropped their original indictment, but not the case. That prosecution suffered a blow when, on Jan. 20, in his waning hours in office, outgoing Gov. Phil Murphy pardoned Glick. (The case against Silberberg remains pending.)

Glick issued a statement expressing his gratitude to the governor, as well as Assistant Attorney General for Civil Rights Harmeet Dhillon and the Trump Justice Department for “having the fortitude to protect religious freedom and bias motivated violence utilizing the FACE Act,” in apparent recognition of the civil case the department brought.

Dhillon told RCI that “Moshe Glick was unfairly targeted for defending a member of his congregation from violent, antisemitic protestors outside of their synagogue. Governor Murphy was right to end this outrageous prosecution, and this Department of Justice will continue to vigorously enforce the right of every American to worship in peace and without fear.”

The Council on American Islamic Relations, which had supported the prosecution of Glick and Silberberg, panned the pardon, with its New Jersey chapter executive director writing in a press release, “Selective accountability, especially in cases touching public safety, weakens confidence in our justice system.” 

Just days after the pardon, the Justice Department sought FACE Act charges in defense of congregants of St. Paul’s Cities Church.

Armstrong said that the Trump administration’s efforts to bring the activists to justice are “how you continue to move us towards authoritarianism, when you weaponize the investigative powers that you have and the departments that you have.”

“This is fascism right at work right now where you go to jail and prison because you exercise your First Amendment right to criticize the government,” her lawyer charged.

In response, a Justice Department spokesperson told RCI that: “Political violence has no place in this country, and this Department of Justice will investigate, identify, and root out any individual or violent extremist group attempting to commit or promote this heinous activity.”

Meanwhile, Justice Department officials have indicated in public remarks that they may be probing incidents at other houses of worship.